Williams v. Does
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-04794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. Does, Judge Engelmayer granted an extension but denied and dismissed Williams’s emergency request for relief.
Jomo Williams and the defendants named in his emergency request, particularly Erlon Hodge and Theresa Daniel, state-court employees identified in the opinion.
What happened
In Williams v. Does, Jomo Williams, representing himself, asked for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. He also asked for an emergency order stopping defendants from allegedly harming his financial reputation.
The court granted Williams’s request for more time and directed him to file objections by February 24, 2025. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted.
The court denied Williams’s emergency request and dismissed it for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Judge Engelmayer found that Williams did not allege facts showing that the state-court employees acted outside their administrative responsibilities; the court directed the clerk to close the related motions.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Does · No. 1:24-cv-04794
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 14, 2025
Background
Jomo Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, filed two relevant requests. First, on February 13, 2025, he asked for an extension of the deadline to object to a January 30, 2025 report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. Second, he filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order—an emergency court order intended to prevent specified conduct while a case proceeds.
Williams asked the court to stop defendants from, among other things, allegedly “falsely vilify[ing] his financial character.” His allegations centered on Erlon Hodge and Theresa Daniel, whom the opinion identifies as employees in the electronic-filing division of the New York State Office of Court Administration. Williams alleged that they denied access to, interfered with, or deleted filings, including a proposed state-court filing involving charges that Verizon Wireless allegedly placed falsely on his credit report.
The opinion states that Hodge and Daniel rejected Williams’s state-court filings because he had not obtained a court order granting permission to proceed without paying filing fees, as required by the cited state-law provision.
Rulings
The court granted Williams’s request for an extension. It directed him to file objections to the report and recommendation no later than February 24, 2025, and stated that no further extensions would be granted.
The court denied Williams’s request for emergency relief. It also stated that the request was dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal means the allegations, even when accepted under the applicable pleading standard, do not provide a legally sufficient basis for the requested relief.
Reasoning
The court recognized that filings by people without lawyers must be read generously. But it found no non-frivolous basis for granting the requested emergency order. Specifically, the court concluded that Williams alleged no facts showing that Hodge or Daniel acted beyond the scope of their administrative responsibilities. Instead, the allegations showed that they informed Williams of a generally applicable state-law requirement.
Disposition
In Williams v. Does, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer’s order granted the extension request but denied Williams’s request for emergency relief and dismissed that request for failure to state a claim. The clerk was directed to close the motions pending at Dockets 74 and 75.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.